Who cares about the age of the earth, or space?

[yeshuasavedme]

If General Relativity was disproved...

Do note that I don't see anywhere in the bible that it specifically says the earth is the center of the universe. In fact I think all four of those verses that talk about a 'firm' or 'unshakable' or likewise world are actually talking about the 'new heaven and new earth' that God creates after the judgment. I might have to check those out again.

So I am still intrigued if there actually was a verse that says in particular that the earth remains motionless.

And there are no aliens.

It says it from Genesis 1.
Read it and see that the earth was created first, there were no heavens at all. The heavens were stretched out between the divided in half waters of created earth.
That means exactly what it states. The heavens were stretched out between the divided in half waters of this created earth, with the heavens in the midst of them, stretched out.

So there was no sun, moon, nor stars at all, to set in the stretched out heavens until day 4.
Since it all came from earth, the earth is the center, and the heavens revolve around the earth, and the sun, moon, and stars have their own paths within the revolving heavens..
Also, the sun always rises and sets, or ascends and descends, without resting, in Bible language. The book, Galileo was Wrong has many, many Scriptures that show a fixed earth and revolving heavens, and also science facts to back up the Bible.
Galileo Was Wrong


The heavens originated -sprang forth- as the vast expanse stretched out from the earth, between the waters divided by their stretching out. There are many Scriptures that show this fact, and I list some of them in my thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7493818/

 

[Jadis40]

What we call outer space was here first...there is absolutely no way of getting around that. Then the sun...then the earth and all the other planets which revolve around the sun. Galileo is right. The earth completes its rotation in a 24 hour period as it revolves around the sun, with the seasons being dictated by the earth's position in it's orbit. That's part of the reason why it's summer in the southern hemisphere when it's winter here. That's also part of the reason why we see certain constellations at certain times of the year but why they're below the horizon at other times.

These aren't mere fanciful ideas put forth by men, they're solid facts backed up by evidence. Besides that, there are no 'storehouses' for hail or snow or anything else. They're just part of meteorological phenomena, just as lightning and thunder are, along with tornadoes and hurricanes.

Look, I know you're not going to change your mind since you have your own views, but don't put them forth as actual scientific fact.

 

[ivebeenshown]

What we call outer space was here first...there is absolutely no way of getting around that. Then the sun...then the earth and all the other planets which revolve around the sun. Galileo is right. The earth completes its rotation in a 24 hour period as it revolves around the sun, with the seasons being dictated by the earth's position in it's orbit. That's part of the reason why it's summer in the southern hemisphere when it's winter here.

One: According to Genesis 1, God created the earth and its vegetation before the celestial bodies. Read Job 38:

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
​

Two: According to the geocentric frame of reference, the sun would move (not orbit, rather move) around the earth in a sort of 'spiral' pattern, from closer to the north pole to closer to the south pole and so forth over the period of the solar year.

Besides that, there are no 'storehouses' for hail or snow or anything else. They're just part of meteorological phenomena, just as lightning and thunder are, along with tornadoes and hurricanes.

Interesting topic but I'm afraid I will have to refrain from answering this to preserve the current discussion about geocentricity/age of heaven and earth.

 

[Jadis40]

One of the things that leaves me scratching my head is why some people insist on a particular interpretation of scripture leaving no room for anything else. Since I firmly believe that God did in fact create the universe and solar system, wouldn't he want us to get a better understanding of how his creation actually operates - and this includes an earth that revolves around the sun, which has been well established as being completely valid and makes sense in light of the study that has been done for centuries? In my view, it's not science that's wrong, but rather our own interpretations or insistence that any other interpretation is wrong. Unlike AiG, my view is if something seems to disagree with scripture, then it's our interpretation of scripture that's subject to being wrong, or that we've missed the point entirely of what is trying to be conveyed in a particular passage.

 

[ivebeenshown]

One of the things that leaves me scratching my head is why some people insist on a particular interpretation of scripture leaving no room for anything else. Since I firmly believe that God did in fact create the universe and solar system, wouldn't he want us to get a better understanding of how his creation actually operates - and this includes an earth that revolves around the sun, which has been well established as being completely valid and makes sense in light of the study that has been done for centuries? In my view, it's not science that's wrong, but rather our own interpretations or insistence that any other interpretation is wrong. Unlike AiG, my view is if something seems to disagree with scripture, then it's our interpretation of scripture that's subject to being wrong, or that we've missed the point entirely of what is trying to be conveyed in a particular passage.

Not really. God told us all we need to know for practical reasons -- the moon tells us the seasons and the sun tells us it's daytime. Why bother with space?

I am completely welcome to any new viewpoints but I am hesitant to accept them without scriptural proofs.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

What we call outer space was here first...there is absolutely no way of getting around that. Then the sun...then the earth and all the other planets which revolve around the sun.

The Word of God says that the earth was created first, before the heavens -plural. The Word says the heavens -the waters/ mayim, prefixed by the Hebrew letter shin, -shinmayim- were stretched out between the divided waters of earth, on day 2. That was "the vast expanse of earth", "springing forth" from the created earth, made by the stretching out of it between the divided waters, that YHWH Elohym speaks of in His Word, in many ways and times, through His prophets.
The Word says the"lights and sun, moon and stars" were made and set in place in the heavens, to be signs for the seasons, on day 4.

There is absolutely no way to get around that, and I have a thread on that fact, which you may like to try to refute it there. -The "Genesis 1 refutes all OEC theories" thread.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

One of the things that leaves me scratching my head is why some people insist on a particular interpretation of scripture .

In the matter of what God created, when He created it, and the order He created it in, and how long ago He did it, there is no interpretation needed. God was plain, simple, and clear. To pretend that He was hiding His meaning by some secret hidden message that needed unbelievers [in His Word] to "spiritualize" millennia after He wrote it through His prophets, is to reduce God to a confused, mixed up, unstable thing that has no relation to the God of Glory.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Not really. God told us all we need to know for practical reasons -- the moon tells us the seasons and the sun tells us it's daytime. Why bother with space?

I am completely welcome to any new viewpoints but I am hesitant to accept them without scriptural proofs.

Actually, the sun, moon, and stars all tell the seasons and measure all time, from the beginning of creation, "rolling the years around", as the gears of creation -like wheels within wheels/cycles within cycles.

God showed "Enoch the prophet, the seventh from Adam", through angels who took him on a tour of the creation, the ordinances of heaven, and the calendar God set in the heavens to measure His cycles by, for this creation and into the regeneration of all things.
All God's ordinances of the heavens which roll time on, are established from the beginning, and do not change
-except in the tribulation
when the stars fall to earth, where all elements of creation started from,
and when the fixed in its place earth does move out of its place, and jumps about as a hunted roe,
and staggers as a drunken man,
and turns upside down
and the seasons are backwards.
-But He promises that it shall not fall, and that He will establish it in righteousness, forever.

Isaiah 13:13 -

[ Original: Hebrew ]Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove (8799) out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

 

[solarwave]

Now you're just acting like a typical teenage forum-dwelling atheist...

Do you believe the earth is a sphere? If so you are calling God a liar because He says it is a circle (2D). Do you believe the Earth is a circle? If so you are calling God a liar because He says it has four corners.

I have already posted scripture-based logical arguments for both of these, and they exist for everything else you have posted as well.

Well I'm not supprised that they act like they do when you have people saying the earth is the centre of the universe.

The reason I went off into that rant was because of how annoyed your highly wrong statements made me. There is not need for it.

But anyway I am happy to go back to being reasonable again.

Still my point still stands. You appear not willing to use reason or science or anything else to understand Genesis 1 so what right do you have to "logical arguments" anywhere else.

If General Relativity was disproved...

Do note that I don't see anywhere in the bible that it specifically says the earth is the center of the universe. In fact I think all four of those verses that talk about a 'firm' or 'unshakable' or likewise world are actually talking about the 'new heaven and new earth' that God creates after the judgment. I might have to check those out again.

So I am still intrigued if there actually was a verse that says in particular that the earth remains motionless.

And there are no aliens.

So if you see no reason in the bible to believe the earth is the centre you are just using loops holes in science?

I do not believe that you have read the Bible as a Christian [not saying you are not a Christian if you say you are, but that as a Christian, you have not read the Bible] at all, to make such claims as you made. You seem to rely on the sites of atheists and skeptics to make your statements from, so here is a refutation site for you, of the atheistic claims and skeptic claims that have been refuted so many times, on Christian boards, with so many Scriptures.

Did you not see that what I said was not what I thought, nor was it using my own reasoning. I was just using the logic applied to Genesis by some here and applied it to other verses. The logic appears to be not to think and just to believe what is at face value of the Bible.

I have never used the site of atheists, and what I said wasn't even atheistic, it was anti-fundementalist.

Your other claims have also been answered many times by Bible believing Christians, and you can go to the proper forums on this board to learn what the Bible actually teaches and to whom and why, on those off topic accusations -or you can just read the Bible for yourself, instead of letting others tell you what it does 'not" say, for you to gullibly swallow.

The problems I presented don't attack Christianity, they do attack the lack of reasoning presented in believing the earth is the centre of the universe.

 

[ivebeenshown]

You appear not willing to use reason or science or anything else to understand Genesis 1 so what right do you have to "logical arguments" anywhere else.

So if you see no reason in the bible to believe the earth is the centre you are just using loops holes in science?

I like to check scripture against scripture -- for instance, it seems perfectly logical that if the bible refers to the earth as a 'circle' (a Hebrew word which, it turns out, does not explicitly mean a 2D circle) then the references to 'edges of the earth' or 'ends of the earth' or 'corners of the earth' are metaphors.

Don't you see? I'm trying to trust everything I can from scripture. If I can trust scripture over science for the matter of resurrection, I feel that I can trust it for the creation of the universe and the nature of the heavens -- besides, where were you when He laid the foundations of the earth? Declare.

Now, General Relativity is more than just a 'loophole in science' for geocentric models, it was the original loophole for a heliocentric model. Due to general relativity the geocentric model cannot be disproved, so I am looking for scriptures. Besides, yeshuasavedme just gave me a key verse for a fixed earth: Isaiah 13:13.

Psalms 115
16The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

Psalm 103
12As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

How far is the east from the west? Infinitely far, it's a never ending circle about the globe of the earth! God forgives out transgressions that same amount through Christ. Hallelujah. I'd hate to think they assumed God had a limit to forgiving his faithful.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The problems I presented don't attack Christianity, they do attack the lack of reasoning presented in believing the earth is the centre of the universe.

I do not say that you attack "Christianity" -a term that is so all encompassing that it means nothing, because the term encompassing all that is of man and not of the Word has no foundation and is vanity, and nothingness; but I do say you attack the Foundation itself, which born again in Christ believers stand on, which foundation is the Word; and the Word was made flesh; and His name is Salvation/Jesus, to us who are born of His Living Spirit; but His Name is "Israel", as to being God come in flesh as second creation human being, and brother to Adam, so as to be the One who has the legal authority, and the will, and the Power, to be the Kinsman/Redeemer/Ga'al, to the Adam race.

Now as to the reasoning of man which you espouse, how can you reason away Genesis 1, in that there were no heavens anywhere at all until day 2, when they were stretched out between the divided in half waters of the earth? "heaven is only written in the plural form for waters, with the Hebrew letter "shin" prefixing it. God named the heavens שמים, the same name as the waters מים, with the prefix ש.

To re-iterate: how can you reason away Genesis 1, in that there were no heavens until day 2, and they were not formed until they were stretched out from the earth, between the divided waters; and as there were no heavens until day 2, then there were no stars in the heavens; and as there was no sun and no moon made nor set in the heavens until day 4, how do you reason Genesis 1 away, then?

Also, as the stars will fall down from the dissolved heavens, then where do the stars fall to, by your reasoning of man?

By the Word of God, they fall down to the earth, which will be left standing when the heavens are dissolved and rolled together as a scroll -for the regeneration of them, after the final judgment of the wicked.

Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling [fig] from the fig tree.

Mar 13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.



Psa 104:1-5
Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be moved for ever.

Now there is the time in the tribulation that the earth will be "moved from its place, turned upside down, totter/move and skip about as a hunted roe, and stagger as a drunken man"; but YHWH promises in Pslam 75:2,3, that when these things happen, He will "bear up the pillars" -actually reset them in righteousness, so that the earth will not be moved for eternity.


What will the reasoning of man be when the earth is moved out of its fixed place, turns upside down, and the seasons are backwards, and the earth jumps about, skips and staggers, with earthquakes, tsunamis, and winds all raging? -the reasoning of those who come to believe in the name of the Son of Man, who made all things and who upholds all things by His Word, will be that He is doing what He said He would do, in His Word [beginning in Enoch, who first wrote of these things for the last days]; but the reasoning of those who reject His name will be to take the host of heavens for gods, and make idols to them and worship them, in the deception of blindness sent to them that they might believe the lie that they are gods, as Enoch wrote, and as Paul re-iterated, so that they all may be damned who did not receive the love of the Truth, and repent and be saved in His name.

 

[pgp_protector]

Subscribing & saving thread.

 

[solarwave]

I like to check scripture against scripture -- for instance, it seems perfectly logical that if the bible refers to the earth as a 'circle' (a Hebrew word which, it turns out, does not explicitly mean a 2D circle) then the references to 'edges of the earth' or 'ends of the earth' or 'corners of the earth' are metaphors.

But why isn't the earth a square if the Bible says four corners? Why can't the circle be the metaphor?

So you believe the Bible is the only revelation of God? What about General Revelation (God seen in the universe) or personal revelation? If you accept General Revelation is makes science make much more sense.

Don't you see? I'm trying to trust everything I can from scripture. If I can trust scripture over science for the matter of resurrection, I feel that I can trust it for the creation of the universe and the nature of the heavens -- besides, where were you when He laid the foundations of the earth? Declare.

But science says nothing about the resurrection. Science has never said miracles are not possible... there is no contradiction even between Gods word and Gods creation understood through science. The resurrection is true and science can be trusted.

I wasn't existing, nor were the writters of the Bible, nor were you. You say you trust the Bible over science right? Well when you say that it is not the Bible you trust, it is YOUR interpretation of it. Do you claim that your interpretation is worth so much as to get rid of decent science?

Now, General Relativity is more than just a 'loophole in science' for geocentric models, it was the original loophole for a heliocentric model. Due to general relativity the geocentric model cannot be disproved, so I am looking for scriptures. Besides, yeshuasavedme just gave me a key verse for a fixed earth: Isaiah 13:13.

You may say the sun ground round the earth, but we see that the other planets go round the sun and that we go round the milkyway and that the milkyway is moving away from all other galaxies. So the sun may go round us, but not much else other than the moon.

We also know how gravity works and that the Sun has more gravity than us and so it makes much for sense with the information above to think the earth goes roudn the Sun. Is there no possibilitly that Isaiah 13:13 might have a deeper meaning than to explain science? The Bible isn't a science book, it is so much more.

Psalms 115
16The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

This is David speaking from his experiences and expressing it through the Spirit. Remember when this was written and for who and by who.

Psalm 103
12As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

I agree with this though.

 

[solarwave]

I do not say that you attack "Christianity" -a term that is so all encompassing that it means nothing, because the term encompassing all that is of man and not of the Word has no foundation and is vanity, and nothingness; but I do say you attack the Foundation itself, which born again in Christ believers stand on, which foundation is the Word; and the Word was made flesh; and His name is Salvation/Jesus, to us who are born of His Living Spirit; but His Name is "Israel", as to being God come in flesh as second creation human being, and brother to Adam, so as to be the One who has the legal authority, and the will, and the Power, to be the Kinsman/Redeemer/Ga'al, to the Adam race.

What foundation is it that I attack?

Christ's death and resurrection? I think not!

The Bible as from God? No. Is the Bible the word of God? Well not in the same sense as Jesus was. Jesus is the Word/Logos/Wisdom of God and the true expression of God in man. But the Bible isn't the Word and if never claims to be, it only claims Jesus is the Word. The Bible may be inspired by God, but is not God. The Bible is not the foundation of Christianity, Jesus' life and Gods love are.

Now as to the reasoning of man which you espouse, how can you reason away Genesis 1, in that there were no heavens anywhere at all until day 2, when they were stretched out between the divided in half waters of the earth? "heaven is only written in the plural form for waters, with the Hebrew letter "shin" prefixing it. God named the heavens שמים, the same name as the waters מים, with the prefix ש.

To re-iterate: how can you reason away Genesis 1, in that there were no heavens until day 2, and they were not formed until they were stretched out from the earth, between the divided waters; and as there were no heavens until day 2, then there were no stars in the heavens; and as there was no sun and no moon made nor set in the heavens until day 4, how do you reason Genesis 1 away, then?

I am not sure what you are saying in these two paragraphs. I don't reason away Genesis 1, and just say there are metaphorical, a deep spiritual myth.

Also, as the stars will fall down from the dissolved heavens, then where do the stars fall to, by your reasoning of man?

And the stars falling away isn't metaphorical? Even if the stars fall somewhere isn't have to mean the earth..... since one star would destroy the earth.

 

[ivebeenshown]

But why isn't the earth a square if the Bible says four corners? Why can't the circle be the metaphor?

I have never seen the use of metaphor in which something that is in actuality rectangular is likened through metaphor to a circular form. The earth, however, is in all actuality spherical, which can be confirmed by flight or by sea or by foot or by photographs from space or from a combination of any or all of those. This readily agrees with scripture due to Isaiah 40:22, rendering the rest of those terms about the edges, corners, etc. metaphors, which can still be found in use in English (though not so often) today.

For the same reasons, due to Job (darkness as a swaddlingband) or "hangs the earth upon nothing" agrees with what we know about the earth in relation to space, rendering the 'pillars of the earth' references as metaphors.

I have already explained these things from my view... So back to geocentrism...

I wasn't existing, nor were the writters of the Bible, nor were you. You say you trust the Bible over science right? Well when you say that it is not the Bible you trust, it is YOUR interpretation of it. Do you claim that your interpretation is worth so much as to get rid of decent science?

No. I think my view has to match scriptures, though. "Study to shew thyself approved before God." I would not claim to know everything just because I believe what the bible says. The issue here seems to be with geocentrism. A spherical earth hanging in the blackness of space can be reconciled with scriptures rather easily, it's past, I've done that study and I'm past that, it's tired and tried -- but with geocentric vs. heliocentric/acentric models, so far the geocentric model seems to win out based on scripture and is entirely possible due to general relativity. It's not at all invalid scientifically, it's just a matter of an small theological detail. I would be more than happy to view the bible's statements regarding an immobile earth as metaphor if someone could show me another scripture that agrees with a heliocentric/acentric model. That's all I would need.

You may say the sun ground round the earth, but we see that the other planets go round the sun and that we go round the milkyway and that the milkyway is moving away from all other galaxies. So the sun may go round us, but not much else other than the moon.

We also know how gravity works and that the Sun has more gravity than us and so it makes much for sense with the information above to think the earth goes roudn the Sun. Is there no possibilitly that Isaiah 13:13 might have a deeper meaning than to explain science? The Bible isn't a science book, it is so much more.

What if our view of gravity and the motions of space are just one way of calculating what actually happens up there? After all, they don't know what makes these things even work the way they do. They don't understand how the darkness of space works and they will never reach the bottom of it. It is simply 'darkness'.

The 'solar system' can be viewed from a heliocentric frame of reference for creating trajectory paths or it can be viewed from a geocentric frame of reference in which there is one super-large 'celestial system' -- they are both equally valid, and the scripture seems to support the geocentric universe. Just because it makes the motions of the heavens more difficult to explain from that frame of reference doesn't in itself make it wrong.

The universe all works together -- even without a geocentric view, it's not just the planets around the sun, and it's not just the sun around the center of some milky way. It's all of the universe as one beautiful cosmic machine. However, in my view, God did indeed only give us the earth for inhabiting, and the only purpose for the heavens is telling us times and seasons (and signs, such as the star of Bethlehem or the retrograde motion of the Sun by ten degrees.) The earth and the heaven are viewed as separate, and the heaven functions as an extremely intricate time system rather than just a bunch of pretty floating things in a bunch of darkness.

 

[solarwave]

I have never seen the use of metaphor in which something that is in actuality rectangular is likened through metaphor to a circular form. The earth, however, is in all actuality spherical, which can be confirmed by flight or by sea or by foot or by photographs from space or from a combination of any or all of those. This readily agrees with scripture due to Isaiah 40:22, rendering the rest of those terms about the edges, corners, etc. metaphors, which can still be found in use in English (though not so often) today.

Fair enough, I'm happy to drop talking about the shape of the earth. Though just because you havn't heard of a square thing being compared to a circle it doesn't mean would be wierd for an ancient culture..... the culture the Bible was written in to, not ours.

No. I think my view has to match scriptures, though. "Study to shew thyself approved before God." I would not claim to know everything just because I believe what the bible says. The issue here seems to be with geocentrism. A spherical earth hanging in the blackness of space can be reconciled with scriptures rather easily, it's past, I've done that study and I'm past that, it's tired and tried -- but with geocentric vs. heliocentric/acentric models, so far the geocentric model seems to win out based on scripture and is entirely possible due to general relativity. It's not at all invalid scientifically, it's just a matter of an small theological detail.

The earth going round the sun can also be reconciled easily with the Bible. For example, when the Bible talks about such things it is using metaphors of their culture to make a bigger point. For example an immobile earth expresses the power and control of God. Many things in the Bible are taken metaphorically and it isn't wrong to do it with these passages too. Scienticific evidence might help lead us to this. True science isn't in the Bible but nor is genetic engineering but people have strong opinions on this.

I would be more than happy to view the bible's statements regarding an immobile earth as metaphor if someone could show me another scripture that agrees with a heliocentric/acentric model. That's all I would need.

Even if there were a verse as you ask for it would be a bad reason to believe the earth moves. Its how you believe that needs to change (In my humble opinion) not what you believe.

What if our view of gravity and the motions of space are just one way of calculating what actually happens up there? After all, they don't know what makes these things even work the way they do. They don't understand how the darkness of space works and they will never reach the bottom of it. It is simply 'darkness'.

We can see alot of what is happening up there, such as it not going round the earth. If you mean dark matter it is more than the 'darkness of space'. It is a substance/force and science will figure out what.

The 'solar system' can be viewed from a heliocentric frame of reference for creating trajectory paths or it can be viewed from a geocentric frame of reference in which there is one super-large 'celestial system' -- they are both equally valid, and the scripture seems to support the geocentric universe. Just because it makes the motions of the heavens more difficult to explain from that frame of reference doesn't in itself make it wrong.

Don't you think there is a good reason science changed its view from one system to another? The Geocentric view is messed up with circles everywhere to try to explain how the planets move. Circles upon circles upon circles.... its a mess really. Also (I hope I am correct) the reason they used circles was from greek philosophy thinking that the circle is the most perfect shape, so not biblical.

The earth and the heaven are viewed as separate, and the heaven functions as an extremely intricate time system rather than just a bunch of pretty floating things in a bunch of darkness.

I agree that the universe is amazing.

 

[mylife4his]

It doesnt really matter, according to scripture and if im not mistaken. No human will be here to find out when it ends.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Even if there were a verse as you ask for it would be a bad reason to believe the earth moves. Its how you believe that needs to change (In my humble opinion) not what you believe.

I see the geocentric universe as tying into Genesis 1 -- although God could have easily created the earth before the stars and then set the earth in motion. So it's not entirely tied together after all.

 

[solarwave]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

 

[ivebeenshown]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

Indeed, which in light of the described purpose of the heavens in Genesis 1 designates them to be considered separate in purpose. However, I don't think Genesis 1 contains within it the proper support to interpret the geocentric model -- yeshuasavedme tried to show me how it does, but it still stands that God could have set the earth in motion (that is, based only from Genesis 1.)